Monday, April 17, 2017

Suggestions from Odisha to Central Govt. about Draft Central RTI Rules, 2017

Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
Plot No. D-27, Maitree Vihar, Post-Rail Vihar, Bhubaneswar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15.04.2017

To
 Gayatri Mishra
  Joint Secretary (IR)
 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pension
 Department of Personnel & training
  North Block
  New Delhi
Sub:    Framing  R.T.I rules 2017 in supersession of RTI Rules 2012 -  Comments/suggestions  regarding.
Dear Madam,
            As per your circular dated 31st March 2017 regarding above mentioned subject, a State consultation was organised by Odisha Soohana Adhikar Abhijan (a state–level forum of RTI Activists spearheading campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in Odisha) at Bhubaneswar on 10.4.17. to prepare a note of  suggestions to Central Govt. for  making  the said draft Rules citizen-friendly, inconsonance with letter and spirit of RTI Act.  Good number of intellectuals, advocates, retired bureaucrats, RTI Activists, Civil Society Groups had participated in the deliberation and presented their views. I  am  herewith  forwarding  these   comments / suggestions  for your reference.


                                                          Draft Central RTI Rules, 2017
Rule
    Existing provision
Suggestion
Justifications
Rule-4
Fees for providing information
(C) actual cost of price for samples of models
(d) Rupees fifty per diskette or floppy




(g) so much of postal charge  involved  in supply of information that exceeds fifty rupees
(C) actual cost of price for samples  and /or  models


(d) No fee for sending information in email, pendrive, CD and any other electronics medium.


(g) to be deleted




Because, no cost is involved to provide the information in electronic means.


As per Notification No.34012/ 13(s)/2005-Estt(B) dtd 6-10-2005, “… Since a number of public authorities do not have offices located at each sub-divisional level or sub-district level, the matter was taken up with the Department of Posts to provide the services of their Central Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIOs) to function in that capacity for all public authorities under the Central Government…..”; “The Department of Posts have also indicated that they will be in a position to undertake the work only on behalf of those Ministries who have completed this action and have informed them of the same. Ministries/ Departments are, therefore, requested to indicate the details of the Central Public Information Officers designated by them as well as the nodal officers/ central point in their Department to receive the RTI
mails (application etc. forwarded by the CAPIOs) to the Department of Posts urgently.”



Rule-6.
Mode of Payment of fees
Money order, paytm to be accepted as mode of payment of fees.

Rule-8
(1) (viii) A certificate  stating  that  the matter under appeal  has not been previously filed  and disposed  or are pending  with the commission or any court  and
 To be deleted
As RTI Act concerns  only supply of  information to the information-seekers, no such type of certificate is   required  and it should  not be ground for rejection of appeal. Secondly, this provision has been borrowed from the impugned CIC (Management) Regulations 2007 [vide Regulation 9(6)]. The expression ‘any court’ is not only superfluous, but also counter-productive, since an RTI applicant may require a piece of information simply in connection with one of his cases pending in a court.

Moreover, If the matter under the appeal was previously filed and disposed or are pending there will be a long time gap, obviously more than 90 days.  For delay there is rule to request for condonation vide Rule 8(vii).  So a certificate as required under Rule 8(viii) is not necessary. 

(ix) proof of service of appeal to respondent
To be deleted
It is presumed that proof of service of appeal to respondent means the copy of appeal to be sent to CPIO, First Appellate Authority (FAA) prior to sending it to Commission. It will be extra financial burden on the poor appellant to send the copy of appeal to respondent. The  present practice of  issuing notice along with copy of appeal petition by the Commission to CPIO  has been widely accepted  and it  has not  created any problem  for anybody in RTI regime.

(2)      Before submitting an appeal to the Commission, the appellant  shall cause  a copy of the appeal to be served on the CPIO  and shall submit a proof of such service to the commission
To be deleted
 DO
Rule-11
Procedure for deciding appeals
(iii) inquire through authorised officer further details or facts
To be deleted
As required under section 18 (3) of the RTI Act,  the Commission is empowered itself to enquire  into  cases filed before commission.  Provision  for  appointment of enquiry officer  by  Commission is violation of the RTI Act. As per the Delhi High Court judgement in WP (C) 12714/2009 dated 21.05.2010 in the matter of DDA versus CIC and another, the Commission can’t delegate the enquiry power to any other officer outside its authority.
Rule-12
Withdrawal/abatement of appeal
(1)                The Commission may in its discretion  allow a prayer for withdrawal of an appeal if such prayer is made by the appellant
(2)                The proceedings pending before the commission shall abate  on the death of the appellant
To be deleted


Since 12 years of implementation of RTI Act, many RTI Activists have been murdered due to their fight to expose corruption through use of RTI. May of their  cases are pending in the commission. If the case will be closed, the information relating to corruption or their problem  may not come to public.  Secondly, it will encourage  the vested groups to  kill information-Seekers on the pretext  that  information about their misdeeds  will not be exposed.

CIC RESOLUTION dated13-9-2011 reads, “2. This Commission, therefore, resolves that if it receives a complaint regarding assault or murder of an information seeker, it will examine the pending RTI applications of the victim and order the concerned department(s) to publish the requested information suo motu on their website as per the provisons of law.” Therefore abatement of pending proceedings on the death of the appellant is abatement of transparency

Rule-13
Complaint to the Commission
(1)(V) A  certificate  stating  that  the matter under appeal  has not been previously filed  and disposed  or are pending  with the commission or any court  
 To be deleted
Not required. The purpose of the law to find out information and to be acessable by the citizens. As per RTI Act, the cases relating to non-supply of information will be filed to  Information Commission only.

(vi) Proof of service of complaint to respondent
To be deleted
It is the practice in the commission that the commission issues notice to respondent along copy of the complaint /appeal petition.  It is borrowed from CIC  (Management) Regulation 2007 vide Regulation 10 which has been quashed  by Delhi High Court ( WP C No. 12714/2009 on 21.5.2010.     


(3)                Before submitting  a  complaint to the commission,  the complainant shall cause  a copy of the complaint to  Central Public Information Officer  ad shall submit a proof of such service  to the commission 
 To be deleted
 DO
15
(iv) the Commission may  in its discretion  allow  a prayer  for any amendment  of a complaint during hearing , including conversion of  the complaint into second appeal, if available remedies  have been exhausted  on a prayer  made by the complainant.
To be deleted
It will no way help the complainant or appellant. As per section 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission is empowered to take any kind of step to uphold the law and ensure justice to the complainant. There is no need of conversion of the case into second appeal.
16
(v) On receipt  of a non-compliance communication, the Commission shall determine  whether  compliance of the decision has been made. Where the Commission  finds non-compliance of its decision, it may proceed  action
To be added
It may proceed action against public authority, CPIO and any referred PIO under the Act.  There should be provision for outlining detailed procedure with fixation of time limit for the Commission to initiate action against CPIO, FAA and Public Authority. 

17
Xxxxxxx directs that the appeal/complaint/non-compliance or a category of the same may be posted for hearing/disposal by another bench or a bench of two or more information commissioners either at the request of an Information Commissioner or suo moto  if the same involves an intricate question of law or larger public interest.
To be deleted
As per section 18 ( 3) of the Act,  the Commission is required itself to  cause an enquiry into any complaint cases without assigning anybody for enquiry. Constitution of Bench  of CIC  which has found place in CIC  (Management) Regulation,2007    which has been quashed by Delhi High court  ( WPC 12714/2009 dated 21.5.2010.
18
Presence of parties  before the Commission
(3)The Commission may allow  the parties to be present  in person or through authorised representative  or through video / audio  conferencing  at the time of hearing by Commission
The PIO/ public authority  who has violated RTI Act should not be represented by anybody. He himself is to be present in the hearing to respond the query of the commission.
As per section 19 (5) of the RTI Act,  any appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that  a denial of a request  was justified  shall be on Central Public Information Officer  who denied the request.  Similarly, as per section 20(1) of the RTIAct,  burden of proving  that  he acted reasonably or diligently  shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be.  
22
Language of the Commission
(1)                An appeal or complaint or non-compliance communication  may be filed  in English or in Hindi  and all the documents  or copies thereof shall also be filed  in English or in Hindi
It should be in Hindi, English and other regional language
As per section 4(4) of the RTI Act, each public authority is required to disseminate all materials  taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language  and the most effective method  of communication  in the local area xxxxxxxxx.

 Thanking  you
Yours sincerely


Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
M-9937843482



Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Sashi Bindhani- Most Inefficient and useless Information Commissioner in Odisha

Mrs. Sashiprava Bindhani, the most inefficient, incapable and useless Odisha Information Commissioner – why

Dear  friends
As  I recall, when  name of Sashi Prava Bindhani  was declared  for the post of  Information Commissioner, few  so-called NGOs  and  Activists rose  to  jubilation   writing mail  to congratulate  her.  We the RTI Activists were  observing silently  and eagerly  waiting  to see her  performance.  Her true character being most inefficient  Information Commissioner  was exposed   by Pradip Pradhan  after few months  of  her  performance  in Commission.    
 We were expecting that  she will improve herself   by the time.  But alas, she is as usual.  As she does not have  knowledge  about  English  and lack writing  skill  and  judicial acumen, she could not write  decisions  nor  heard  properly  the cases  during  hearing  which has been alleged several times  by RTI  Activists  and complaint filed  to Governor, Odisha  seeking action against her.
 On 14.02.2017, I have filed RTI application to the PIO, office of Odisha Information Commission  for inspection of relevant records of Order passed by Sashiprava Bindhani, State Information Commissioner during the Period from November 2016 to February 2017. Then subsequent communication received from OIC for permission of inspection on 31st March 2017. Accordingly, I  inspected  all the files, documents, case records  of the cases  disposed by Sashi Prava Bindhanai.
 This is the outcome from my inspection of her Order which will surprise to all of you and many more.
   I go through the inspection on pick and choose basis from order passed in 4 months.
Case  Number
Final date of disposal of case by Mrs. Bindhani
Date of Order Signed  by Law Officer  
Date of Copy of  Order sent to appellant
Comments
1337/2014
22.08.2016
07.03.2017
22.03.2017
After six months,  copy of order  sent  to appellant
1835/2014
29.09.2016
07.03.2017
22.03.2017
The commission took five months  to send   copy of order to appellant
415/2014
17.10.2016
07.03.2017
22.03.2017
The commission took five months  to send   copy of order to appellant
604/2014
21.10.2016
07.03.2017
22.03.2017
The commission took five months  to send   copy of order to appellant
1462/14
09.11.2016

22.02.2017
Order  not delivered , though five months have passed
1633/2014
15.11.2016

18.02.2017
Order  not delivered
687/2014
16.11.2016

20.03.2017
Order  not delivered
1238/2014
16.11.2016
20.03.2017
29.03.2017
Order  not delivered
908/2014
23.12.2016
20.03.2017
29.03.2017
Order  not delivered
1615/2014
02.12.2016

28.03.2017
Order  not delivered
1736/2014
19.12.2016
20.03.2017
29.03.2017
Order  not delivered
594/2014
11.01.2017

20.03.2017
Order  not delivered
3176/2014
11.01.2017
20.03.2017
29.03.2017
Order  not delivered
2093/2014
12.01.2017

20.03.2017
Order  not delivered
1160/2014
25.01.2017

20.03.2017
Order  not delivered
 Even after final hearing /order passed, most of the Order couldn’t be sent after 4/5/6 months since it was not completed in final shape to be sent in as a hard copy. Hence Applicant has to   wait for more than 4 to 5 months to receive his/her Order. Before this kind of long waiting a applicant already waiting since 1.5 /2 years to get his date of hearing before the commission.  
 In many hearing cases where there is hard evidence and purposefully delay by PIO , Commissioner Bindhani has only simply disposed off the case by ordering to supply the information without serving fine and taking Disciplinary action against delinquent PIO who is working at the  behest of corrupt officer in their department .This is  the modus operandi of a commissioner who   deserves to be disqualified by Governor and condemned  by so-called NGOs  and activists  who congratulated  her.
 Srikant Pakal
RTI Activist, Odisha
M-9338455092

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Fact-finding Report on Govt. conspiracy to destroy age-old Sukinda Farm of Jajpur district, Odisha

Fact-finding Report
on
“Collapse of Sukinda Seeds Production Farm, Jajpur district, Odisha - a testimony of age-old State Govt. negligence, callousness, apathy and conspiracy destroying Agriculture and Farming Community”

Introduction
There was series of news in leading Odia daily newspapers from October to December 2016 highlighting the movement of “Sukinda Seed Farm labourers’ Union” demanding cancellation of MOU signed   among Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment, Govt. of Odisha, Odisha State Seeds Corporation, National Seed Corporation Ltd. for granting permissive possession of   270.38 acres of land within Sukinda Agriculture Farm of Jajpur district to NSC for  pulses seed production  programme and  subsequent police action  against women labourers and  their leader Sri Biswanath Patra who is known Human Rights Activist  of  the district. Getting sensitised about series of action programme i.e., rally, dharana, demonstration and gherao in and around Agriculture  Farm,  it was  thought of  to visit  the area  to understand  the reason  of the opposition of the   local  labourers  to National Seed Corporation Ltd., their concern about loss of livelihood and demand to protect  the sanctity  of  the Farm.  A Four-Member Fact-finding Team of Civil Society Groups had made a visit to Sukinda Agricultural Farm on 10.1.17. Prior to visit, the local people, women labourers of Sukinda Seed Farm Labourers’ Union were  informed in advance about the visit of the Team. The Team members were as follows.

A.      Pradip Pradhan, State Convener, Right to Food Campaign, Odisha
B.      Sri Ashok Mallik, Dalit Activist and State President of NACDOR
C.      Smt. Sanjukta Panigrahi, Woman Activist
D.      Sri Sanjay Sahu,  Human Rights Activist

The Team reached at 12 noon. The labourers welcomed and escorted the team inside Sukinda Farm. Women labourers of the Union were seen visibly waiting the Team to interact with great expectation   of solving their problems.  They were seen very distressed sitting in open field.  After a brief introduction about the purpose of the visit by the team members, Sri Biswanath patra and their president and Secretary Smt. Khaira Mohanta and Indramani Mohanta made brief presentation about history of farm and its collapse and their struggle.  

Sukinda Seed Production Farm under Jajpur district of Odisha  is one of  the biggest seed producing farms in Asian sub-continent.  It spread over 1437 acres of cultivable land. This Farm started functioning from 1948. A good number of agriculture produces like paddy, Mucca, mustard, brinjal, tomato, groundnut, Biri, Mung, were cultivated and  huge quantity of these items were produced, sold and marketed to other areas.  Around three thousand agriculture labourers were engaged to work in this farm and earning their livelihood.  Huge quantity of seeds was produced and supplied to different parts of the state. It was also place for research in agriculture produces. Agriculture scientists and experts use to visit frequently to this farm.  This farm has name, fame and glory attracting the farmers and experts.

 But the negligence and apathetic attitude of State Govt. officials to this farm started in 1990s.  The agriculture farming got deteriorated. Production decreased and hundreds of acres of land remained fallow. In this situation,  a private organisation started  planting pamolin tree inside the Farm  but got destroyed  due to absence of proper care. Then bad to worse, eucalyptus plantation was undertaken by officials of watershed project which damaged the farming land.   Then, Horticulture Dept.  undertook plantation of mango and cashew  and other fruit bearing tress  which  had very negative impact on agriculture. The Govt. also undertook plantation under NREGS (National Rural Employment Guarantee Schemes). Few acres of land of the Farm was also allotted to IMFA to open private ITI College. Similarly, many of the prime land of this farm has been encroached by the local influential people.

As the Govt. neglected the Farm,   seed production got reduced and the local agriculture   labourers could not get much employment.  Most part of the land remained fallow. However presently, few agriculture produces like paddy, Arahar, groundnut, mustard are being cultivated in the farm spread over around 230 acres of land.  Around 500 laboureres are still working and earning their livelihood.

In 2009, when the Govt. tried to use machinery in the farm for broadcasting and crop cutting which replaced   the labourers from agriculture activity, the labourers got organised and protested it under the banner of “Sukinda Seed Farm labourers’ Union” due to loss of employment.  Due to popular movement, the machinery was withdrawn. Then the farmers demanded minimum wage and creation of provident Fund for them. 

When the labourers have been demanding revamping agriculture production  in the Farm,  on 23.7.16, the State Govt.  entered  into an agreement in form of MOU  with  National Seed Corporation Ltd. ( a Govt. of India undertaking )  for granting permissive possession  of 270.38 acres land  within agricultural farm, Sukinda.  The lease was executed for 15 years authorising NSC to use land  for production of non-paddy seed  like pulses and oilseeds inside the farm  and development of required  infrastructure for said purpose. The leased land in no case shall be mortgaged/transferred for other purposes. But later on , the State Govt. wrote  letter dt. 24.9.16 and 6.10.16  to  Farm Superintendent, Sukinda  to hand over  total  no. 303.85 acres of land to NSC Ltd. On 20.10.16, the Farm Superintendent handed over the land to National Seed Corporation.

NSC hired  a contractor farm named  Gobinda Engineering  of  Jharkahnd state to carry out all the programme and engaged   a number of tractors and huge machinery  to start cultivation which replaced  labourers. Women labourers were also not allowed to do any work in the farm.   As NSC will undertake non-paddy activity, the women labourers who have been working in the farm apprehended of losing the employment.  When the labourers were not allowed, they started opposing NSC and did not allow them to operate   in the farm.   Since then,  the labourers  under banner of Sukinda Seed Farm labourers’ Union have been organising series of movements against NSC and  restoration of their  employment which is the only source of livelihood. This area as follows.

A.   ON 9.8.16, a memorandum was submitted to BDO, Sukinda  for cancellation of MOU with National Seed Corporation.
B.    On 20.8.16, Mass demonstration was organised at lower PMG, Bhubaneswar and memorandum was submitted to Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment   for cancellation of MOU with National Seed Corporation Ltd.  and   restoration of livelihood by revamping the farm. The Minister assured the leaders to look into the matter.
C.    Finding no response from Govt., on 24.9.16,  the leaders of  the Union led  by Sri Biswanath Patra met Chief Secretary, Odisha and submitted memorandum to him  seeking his intervention for cancellation of agreement with NSC and restoration of  farm.
D.   While movement was going on, the NSC tried to start the work by using tractors and   forcibly entering into farm with help of police force. The labourers opposed and blocked the road in front of farm.  Then, on 9.10.16, BDO intervened and called the meeting of NSC representatives and leaders of labourers for discussion to bring out solution.  The meeting yielded no result. Sri Pradeep Patnaik, Regional Manager, NSC Ltd.  assured to stop the work  till the grievances of the labourers are addressed.
E.    But NSC with help of police started to resume the work and did not allow the labourers to do the work.  Enraged labourers again   opposed and blocked N.H.53 road.   On the spot the Tahasildar, Sukinda and Inspector of Police, Sukinda reached and negotiated with labourers to bring solution.  It was agreeded that NSC will allow the labourers to do the work in the farm without engaging new labourers.
F.    But after 6 days, NSC again engaged labourers of outside area and did not allow these labourers.  The hundreds of labourers again organised road blockade and sat-in-Dharana in front of office of Sub-collector, Kalinga Nagar demanding employment in the farm.  Dharana was withdrawn after assurance given by the Sub-Collector.

Despite several protest and dharana  by the labourers, the authority of National Seed Corporation is determined  not to allow the women labourers to do the work.  The livelihood of thousands of the families have been affected, as the labourers are  provided  any work  in the farm.

Keeping it in view, the team recommends to the State Govt.  in Department of Agriculture  and farmers’ empowerment  to take the following steps  to provide livelihood to women labourers.

A.      National Seed Corporation Ltd., New Delhi should be directed to engage women labourers in the farm for production of non-paddy seeds as per MOU. There should be tripartite agreement  between  labour Union, State Govt. and NSC to ensure job security  of women labourers in the farm.

B.      If this arrangement  is not possible, the State Govt.  should allot   few quantity  of land  to  the Union  to undertake  paddy and on-paddy  cultivation on cooperative basis.  The Govt. will provide them technical and financial support for it.

C.       In view of huge quantity of land  being encroached by  some influential people, the land of the Farm  should be demarcated  and   brought to Govt. fold.


Report prepared by

Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Email-foodrightsodisha@gmail.com